4 ms·

What's newsworthy here? I would be surprised if Google don't use their past bid data.

dillondoyle 6y ago
Im trying to unpack it to - that's my take as well. I think? the controversy/what TX is arguing is that it's not fair because google owns both sides. That using publisher bid data - that if they were an independent exchange they wouldn't have access to - to inform bids for buyers is anti-competitive. I personally don't buy it, but maybe it's so complicated a jury might.
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  It is 100% not fair. If we think that ad auctions are like security markets, then this would clearly be securities fraud. Google owning both sides is fine if the information is firewalled, and they compete on the same terms as the other exchanges. If this is not true, then from an EU perspective, this is anti-competitive. Dunno about the US, but the fact that Texas is bringing a suit suggests that they think they have a case.
  - LatteLazy 6y ago
    The issue here is that securities markets are (sometimes) meant to be fair for complex reasons that only really apply to securities markets. Google doesn't owe their customers a fair market. No one does. Nothing legally requires a market provider to provide one.
    - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
      Sure, that's why I said it was ethical more than legal. That being said, a lot of the tech company marketing materials talks about how fair the ad auction process is. Stories like this make a mockery of such arguments. I really want this case to work, as I think the dominance of FB, Google and soon Amazon in this space is really bad.
      - LatteLazy 6y ago
        Sorry, I misread you comment! It seems like if this case succeeds then it would have big effects in other industries. Supermarkets are famous for legally "abusing" their market positions and data...
    - mtgx 6y ago
      Except antitrust law, you mean.
    - grayhatter 6y ago
      > Google doesn't owe their customers a fair market. No one does. do you mean this as an exclusively textual interpretation of existing laws? or something else entirely? because I'd assert that any and every agent has the responsibility to act in a fair and balanced way. Both ethically and legally. Alphabet may have found a loop hole in existing laws, but isnt' that the whole idea behind antitrust. You're free to eliminate all your competition by being better than them but not by restricting their ability to compete.
      - LatteLazy 6y ago
        There are 2 separate issues here: the moral and the legal. The moral I leave to you. Morality and fairness are always matters of personal opinion. I don't think fiddling markets you control is "fair" for what it's worth... The legal is pretty cut and dry. Especially for b2b like this. Maybe we should change the law? But then you're going to have to change it everywhere. Check out the shit supermarkets pull, they're a good example of a market provider that plays both sides. Google might have been unfair, but they're not in the top 10,000 for unfairness in this regard...
p49k 6y ago
Google is the only major advertising company which requires you to use their own ad server (DFP, now known as GAM) in order to compete in real-time with its own inventory. Since they are the largest advertiser, everyone is basically forced to use Google's ad server to manage all/most of their inventory, including inventory from other advertisers. My understanding from the article is that they were using the data they collected about publishers' other advertisers within the ad serving system to give themselves an upper hand. This is not surprising when you learn all of the other more obvious ways that Google gives themselves an upper hand in GAM.
luckylion 6y ago
I got the impression that it's similar to Amazon, where officially no 3rd-party-seller sales information (from the Amazon Marketplace) is used to decide what products Amazon would sell itself, but it later came out that they simply lied about it and did use the data to get an advantage.

Im trying to unpack it to - that's my take as well. I think? the controversy/what TX is arguing is that it's not fair because google owns both sides. That using publisher bid data - that if they were an independent exchange they wouldn't have access to - to inform bids for buyers is anti-competitive. I personally don't buy it, but maybe it's so complicated a jury might.

disgruntledphd2 6y ago
It is 100% not fair. If we think that ad auctions are like security markets, then this would clearly be securities fraud. Google owning both sides is fine if the information is firewalled, and they compete on the same terms as the other exchanges. If this is not true, then from an EU perspective, this is anti-competitive. Dunno about the US, but the fact that Texas is bringing a suit suggests that they think they have a case.
- LatteLazy 6y ago
  The issue here is that securities markets are (sometimes) meant to be fair for complex reasons that only really apply to securities markets. Google doesn't owe their customers a fair market. No one does. Nothing legally requires a market provider to provide one.
  - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
    Sure, that's why I said it was ethical more than legal. That being said, a lot of the tech company marketing materials talks about how fair the ad auction process is. Stories like this make a mockery of such arguments. I really want this case to work, as I think the dominance of FB, Google and soon Amazon in this space is really bad.
    - LatteLazy 6y ago
      Sorry, I misread you comment! It seems like if this case succeeds then it would have big effects in other industries. Supermarkets are famous for legally "abusing" their market positions and data...
  - mtgx 6y ago
    Except antitrust law, you mean.
  - grayhatter 6y ago
    > Google doesn't owe their customers a fair market. No one does. do you mean this as an exclusively textual interpretation of existing laws? or something else entirely? because I'd assert that any and every agent has the responsibility to act in a fair and balanced way. Both ethically and legally. Alphabet may have found a loop hole in existing laws, but isnt' that the whole idea behind antitrust. You're free to eliminate all your competition by being better than them but not by restricting their ability to compete.
    - LatteLazy 6y ago
      There are 2 separate issues here: the moral and the legal. The moral I leave to you. Morality and fairness are always matters of personal opinion. I don't think fiddling markets you control is "fair" for what it's worth... The legal is pretty cut and dry. Especially for b2b like this. Maybe we should change the law? But then you're going to have to change it everywhere. Check out the shit supermarkets pull, they're a good example of a market provider that plays both sides. Google might have been unfair, but they're not in the top 10,000 for unfairness in this regard...

p49k 6y ago

Google is the only major advertising company which requires you to use their own ad server (DFP, now known as GAM) in order to compete in real-time with its own inventory. Since they are the largest advertiser, everyone is basically forced to use Google's ad server to manage all/most of their inventory, including inventory from other advertisers. My understanding from the article is that they were using the data they collected about publishers' other advertisers within the ad serving system to give themselves an upper hand. This is not surprising when you learn all of the other more obvious ways that Google gives themselves an upper hand in GAM.

luckylion 6y ago

I got the impression that it's similar to Amazon, where officially no 3rd-party-seller sales information (from the Amazon Marketplace) is used to decide what products Amazon would sell itself, but it later came out that they simply lied about it and did use the data to get an advantage.